2808NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 2
A2 Written Assignment
Concept Map + 500-word Written Explanation
Weighting: 40% (marked out of 40)
Due Date: 5 pm, September 10, 2024
This assessment aims to enhance your ability to critically analyse a patient case study, differentiate between normal and abnormal in the case study and identify evidence-based diagnostic investigations and treatment strategies. This assignment will help you integrate and apply your understanding of human pathophysiology and pharmacology through the creation of a single-page concept map and a 500-word written explanation.
This assessment will cover all the learning outcomes of the course.
Instructions:
There are TWO parts to this task, both requiring interpretation and analysis of a case study scenario.
Patient Case Study
Jade is a 33-year-old corporate lawyer. She presents to her local clinic with a two-month history of persistent epigastric pain. She describes the pain as a ‘burning’ sensation that increases after eating. She has vomited old, dark blood in the past couple of days. Over the same period, she has observed unintentional weight loss and feeling increasingly fatigued.
On reviewing her lifestyle and medical history, it is noted that she has been taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regularly for the past year to manage chronic back pain. She smokes half a pack of cigarettes a day and describes her job as ‘highly stressful’, often requiring long hours and working under tight deadlines.
Based on her symptoms and lifestyle factors, Jade's healthcare provider recommends diagnostic tests to accurately diagnose the cause of her epigastric pain.
Jade is diagnosed with peptic ulcer disease (PUD) caused by two ulcers of the gastric mucosa. To address her condition, the provider outlines a treatment plan that includes medications, alongside other interventions, aimed at effectively managing her PUD.
Part 1: Concept Map
• Develop a single-page, color-coded concept map (what does a good concept map assignment look like?)
• Identify the three (3) patient risk factors (RF) from the case study and demonstrate how these link to the aetiology and/or pathophysiology of the diagnosed disease.
• Provide a step-by-step pathophysiological sequence between the aetiology of the identified disease and the five (5) patient's clinical manifestations (CM) from the case study.
Part 2: Written Explanation (500 words)
• Explain and justify two (2) evidence-based diagnostic investigations that would have been used to confirm the patient's diagnosis.
• Explain and justify (2) evidence-based approaches to treat and manage the patient's condition based on your analysis and interpretation of evidence-based research. One of these management approaches must be pharmacological.
• Use at least four references for the written explanation section.
Other:
• Adhere strictly to the 500-word limit for your written explanation, including in-text citations and quotations. The reference list is not included in the word limit. The marker will stop marking once 500 words are reached.
• You do not need to reference Part 1 (the concept map component).
• Submit Parts 1 and 2 as a single document – we recommend using PowerPoint to create your concept map, and for your written section (how do I do this?)
• We highly recommend saving and submitting your PowerPoint slides as a PDF single document to avoid unwanted reformatting when you submit your assignment via the submission portal.
• Use scholarly literature published within the last ten years (2014 - 2024 inclusive).
• Use APA7 referencing style, as per the referencing section of the Griffith Health Writing and Referencing Guidelines.
• You may use headings and subheadings to organise your written explanation; a formal introduction and conclusion are not required.
• Use academic language throughout; do not write in the first person.
• Refer to the marking rubric at the end of this document to understand the ‘weighting’ of each section.
• Submit your assignment via the ‘A2 FINAL Concept map written assignment submission’ tab on your Learning@Griffith course site.
• We highly recommend submitting a draft of your concept map assignment to the ‘A2 DRAFT SUBMISSION’ tab on your Learning@Griffith course site to check for inadvertent plagiarism.
More resources to help you:
• Concept-map FAQs
• What is a concept map? (Watch from the 15 min mark)
2808NRS Human Pathophysiology and Pharmacology 2 – Rubric A2 Written Assignment: Concept map assignment.
Assessable Elements EXEMPLARY
Exceptionally high quality of performance or
standard of learning achievement. ACCOMPLISHED DEVELOPING
High-quality performance Satisfactory quality of or standard of learning performance or standard of achievement. learning achievement. NOT THERE YET
Unsatisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. TOTAL MARK
Section One: Concept Map
Criterion One
The concept map includes three of the patient risk factors (from the case study) and a demonstration of how these risk factors link and relate to the aetiology/pathophysiology of the diagnosed disease/disorder. Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by an accurate and detailed interpretation of the three patient’s risk factors. Multiple clear and correct links between the three risk factors and the diagnosed disease’s aetiology/pathophysiology are evident in the concept map. High-quality standards as evidenced by an accurate interpretation of most of the patient risk factors. A range of clear and mostly correct links between the risk factors and diagnosed disease’s aetiology/pathophysiology are evident in the concept map. Satisfactory standard as evidenced by an adequate interpretation of some of the patient risk factors. Some correct links between the risk factors and the diagnosed disease’s aetiology/pathophysiology are evident in the concept map. Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by an inaccurate interpretation of the patient risk factors. Links between the risk factors and the diagnosed disease’s aetiology/pathophysiology are not evident in the concept map. /6
Mark allocation 6 - 5.5 5 - 4 3.5 - 3.0 2.5
Criterion Two
The concept map includes a
step-by-step pathophysiological sequence between the aetiology of the diagnosed disease and all of the patient's clinical manifestations (from the case study). High-quality standard as evidenced by a logical and correct step-by-step pathophysiological sequence between the diagnosed disease’s aetiology and all the patient’s clinical manifestations evident in the concept map. Satisfactory standard as evidenced by a mostly correct step-by-step pathophysiological sequence between the diagnosed disease’s aetiology and some of the patient’s clinical manifestations evident in the concept map; some errors. Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by an inaccurate, incomplete or absent stepby-step pathophysiological sequence between the diagnosed disease’s aetiology and the patient’s clinical manifestations; multiple errors. /3
Mark allocation 3 2 1
Criterion Three
The concept map provides an interpretation of the five clinical manifestations of the patient (from the case Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by an accurate interpretation of the five patient’s clinical manifestations. Clear links High-quality standard as evidenced by an accurate interpretation of most of the patient’s clinical manifestations. Clear links Satisfactory standard as evidenced by an adequate interpretation of some of the patient’s clinical manifestations. Some links Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by an inaccurate or absent interpretation of the patient’s clinical manifestations. Links /10
Assessable Elements EXEMPLARY
Exceptionally high quality of performance or
standard of learning achievement. ACCOMPLISHED
High-quality performance or standard of learning achievement. DEVELOPING
Satisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. NOT THERE YET
Unsatisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. TOTAL MARK
study) and a demonstration of how these clinical manifestations link with the disease's pathophysiological sequence. between the five clinical manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence in the concept map. between most of the clinical manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence are evident in the concept map. between the clinical manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence are evident in the concept map. between the clinical manifestations and the disease’s/disorder’s pathophysiological sequence are not evident in the concept map.
Mark allocation 10 – 9 8.5 – 6.5 6 – 4.5 4 – 1
Section Two: Written Explanation
Criterion Four
Uses evidence-based research to justify two diagnostic investigations in terms of their relevance and suitability for the diagnosed disorder in the written explanation. Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by a succinct and well-reasoned justification for diagnostic investigations in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease. High-quality standards as evidenced by a thoughtful and clear justification of the diagnostic investigations in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease. Satisfactory standards as evidenced by a brief and mostly clear justification of some of the diagnostic investigations in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease; might be some errors. Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by a poor justification of the diagnostic investigations in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease. /8
Mark allocation 8 – 6.5 6 – 4.5 4 – 2.5 2
Criterion Five
Using evidence-based research justifies the two treatment modalities in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease in the written explanation. One of
these management approaches must be pharmacological. Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by a succinct and well-reasoned
justification for the treatment modalities in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease. High-quality standards as evidenced by a thoughtful and clear justification of how the treatment modalities in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease. Satisfactory standards as evidenced by a brief and mostly clear justification of how some of the treatment modalities in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease; might be some errors. Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by a poor justification of the treatment modalities in terms of their relevance and appropriateness for the diagnosed disease, and/or treatments are not appropriate for the disease. /8
Mark allocation 8 – 6.5 6 – 4.5 4 – 2.5 2
Section Three: Overall Presentation and Referencing
Assessable Elements EXEMPLARY
Exceptionally high quality of performance or
standard of learning achievement. ACCOMPLISHED
High-quality performance or standard of learning achievement. DEVELOPING
Satisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. NOT THERE YET
Unsatisfactory quality of performance or standard of learning achievement. TOTAL MARK
Criterion Six
Adheres to presentation, grammar and academic writing standards per the Griffith Health Writing and Referencing Guide. An exemplary demonstration
of academic writing standards. Exemplary sentence and paragraph structure, with few, if any errors, indicates a
sophisticated ability to communicate ideas effectively. High-quality demonstration of academic writing standards. Appropriate sentence and paragraph structure, with some mistakes, indicates an effective ability to communicate ideas effectively. Sufficient demonstration of academic writing standards. Developing sentence and paragraph structure, and some
errors disrupt the communication of ideas. Does not comply with academic writing standards. Poor sentence and paragraph structure and poor logical flow demonstrate an inability to communicate ideas effectively. /3
Mark allocation 3 2 1 0
Criterion Seven Adheres to referencing standards per the Griffith Health Writing and
Referencing Guide. Uses at least four references. Exceptionally high standard as evidenced by the use exemplary use of APA 7 format in-text and reference list with no errors. High-quality standard as evidenced by the consistent use of APA 7 format in-text and reference list with minimal errors. Satisfactory standard as evidenced by the developing use of APA 7 format in-text and reference list, but with several errors. Unsatisfactory standard as evidenced by the beginning or absent use of APA 7 format in-text and reference list with many errors. /2
Mark allocation 2 1 0.5 0
TOTAL /40